Title: Garbage Warrior Director: Oliver Hodge Release Year: 2007
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film told the tale of Michael Reynolds, an innovative experimental architect and his battle with bureaucracy while creating sustainable housing. Although Reynolds proved many concepts through his experimental work with off-the-grid housing, he must constantly work his way through a sea of lawyers and lawmakers all bent, it seems, on keeping him from creating what he shows are excellent designs in regards to their sustainability. This film clearly demonstrates how our government, in attempting to protect us, can be detrimental to sustainability by advocating for the continuation of our unsustainable ways. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Throughout the first half of the film, Reynolds is shown demonstrating the effectiveness of his environmentally sustainable designs. He calls it a “method of living where people can take care of themselves”. The experimental houses he creates have internalized sewage which processes itself, wind and solar generators powering every appliance, and a convection heating powered entirely by the sun which he shows are capable of heating houses to a balmy 75 degrees even while the outdoor temperature drops far below zero. The film discusses his initial success, and how many sought his architectural skills in designing their own sustainable “earth ships”, as they are called. The materials he uses for these houses involve recycled materials such as old tires, plastic bottles and beer cans. Instead of concrete, he uses mud, straw and wood. All of this combines to create a house which can live off the grid for as long as there is somebody willing to do the minimal upkeep working required to keep the house functional. Not only are these houses cheap, but they are incredibly healthy for the environment. Although he admits that “fuckups are 10 times worse” regarding construction in this atmosphere, he shows that the gains which can be achieved in an environment of unrestricted creativity far outweigh the dangers.
The second half of the film documents Reynolds fight with bureaucracy to make it legal to do all of the innovative things discussed in the first half. This bit starts with the government condemning his housing projects, which causes him to lose his architecture license. Consequentially, this causes all of his job sites to be shut down. Reynolds then tries to legitimize his community under the eyes of the law as a subdivision. This requires many years of work, on top of high costs; the rulebook for subdivisions is itself about 5 inches thick. After seven years, their hard work pays off and they become legal. This doesn’t enable Reynolds to continue with his experimental green designs, however, so he attempts to go through New Mexico’s legal system again and create a bill enabling experimental design under certain circumstances. It appeared, however, that “every type of demon and troll was out there trying to devour the bill.” To make a long story short; after many more years and countless hours and dollars lost, Reynolds’ bill is finally passed. This process clearly shows how in an environment where time is of the essence (global warming is approaching ever faster), a thick and complex bureaucratic system in which it takes years to get anything done can be quite harmful to the environment.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
During the middle of the second half, Reynolds and his building team are summoned to the island of Andaman where a hurricane had wiped out much of the infrastructure. Not only had people lost their lives, but those who survived had no access to water or housing. This also left the landscape covered in garbage; the perfect resource for Reynolds to construct with. While there he teaches the natives sustainable building techniques, using such materials as old tires and empty bottles. His designs are circular, so that future hurricanes will be less likely to knock them over, and the roofs of his houses are able to catch rain which makes obsolete their ruined wells. In his words, “it took 14 days to begin something that took 3 years to fail in the United States”. Andaman engineers still use his designs and techniques to construct houses on the island. This bit was the most telling; in a land where there is no ridiculous bureaucracy holding the people down, the freedom to innovate brings about a better way of life.
What parts of the film were you not compelled by?
There wasn’t much that I disagreed with or found un-compelling in the film. The only bit I might have cut out was the long intro intent on painting Reynolds as a rebel genius; the rest of the film did a perfect job of leading the viewer to that conclusion.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
The film compelled me to search and see where this stuff is still being done. I found that it is widespread throughout New Mexico and its boarder states, with projects reaching areas such as Ohio and New England. This method of house constructing is clearly taking hold within certain communities, and seems like it is only growing.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film can play well to all audiences, although Reynolds curses many times which might make it unsuitable for children. The arguments in this film are pretty balanced in appeals, and each style holds its own well, lending itself well to any viewer.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This film showed that although it takes awhile, the current bureaucracy can still be waded through. The problem, however, is that obtaining said results (the bill, for example) take a long time. This bit of the film had no solution addressed, and left the viewer with a rather gloomy feeling. Over all though, the film told a story of hope for eco-friendly housing design.
Director: Oliver Hodge
Release Year: 2007
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film told the tale of Michael Reynolds, an innovative experimental architect and his battle with bureaucracy while creating sustainable housing. Although Reynolds proved many concepts through his experimental work with off-the-grid housing, he must constantly work his way through a sea of lawyers and lawmakers all bent, it seems, on keeping him from creating what he shows are excellent designs in regards to their sustainability. This film clearly demonstrates how our government, in attempting to protect us, can be detrimental to sustainability by advocating for the continuation of our unsustainable ways.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Throughout the first half of the film, Reynolds is shown demonstrating the effectiveness of his environmentally sustainable designs. He calls it a “method of living where people can take care of themselves”. The experimental houses he creates have internalized sewage which processes itself, wind and solar generators powering every appliance, and a convection heating powered entirely by the sun which he shows are capable of heating houses to a balmy 75 degrees even while the outdoor temperature drops far below zero. The film discusses his initial success, and how many sought his architectural skills in designing their own sustainable “earth ships”, as they are called. The materials he uses for these houses involve recycled materials such as old tires, plastic bottles and beer cans. Instead of concrete, he uses mud, straw and wood. All of this combines to create a house which can live off the grid for as long as there is somebody willing to do the minimal upkeep working required to keep the house functional. Not only are these houses cheap, but they are incredibly healthy for the environment. Although he admits that “fuckups are 10 times worse” regarding construction in this atmosphere, he shows that the gains which can be achieved in an environment of unrestricted creativity far outweigh the dangers.
The second half of the film documents Reynolds fight with bureaucracy to make it legal to do all of the innovative things discussed in the first half. This bit starts with the government condemning his housing projects, which causes him to lose his architecture license. Consequentially, this causes all of his job sites to be shut down. Reynolds then tries to legitimize his community under the eyes of the law as a subdivision. This requires many years of work, on top of high costs; the rulebook for subdivisions is itself about 5 inches thick. After seven years, their hard work pays off and they become legal. This doesn’t enable Reynolds to continue with his experimental green designs, however, so he attempts to go through New Mexico’s legal system again and create a bill enabling experimental design under certain circumstances. It appeared, however, that “every type of demon and troll was out there trying to devour the bill.” To make a long story short; after many more years and countless hours and dollars lost, Reynolds’ bill is finally passed. This process clearly shows how in an environment where time is of the essence (global warming is approaching ever faster), a thick and complex bureaucratic system in which it takes years to get anything done can be quite harmful to the environment.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
During the middle of the second half, Reynolds and his building team are summoned to the island of Andaman where a hurricane had wiped out much of the infrastructure. Not only had people lost their lives, but those who survived had no access to water or housing. This also left the landscape covered in garbage; the perfect resource for Reynolds to construct with. While there he teaches the natives sustainable building techniques, using such materials as old tires and empty bottles. His designs are circular, so that future hurricanes will be less likely to knock them over, and the roofs of his houses are able to catch rain which makes obsolete their ruined wells. In his words, “it took 14 days to begin something that took 3 years to fail in the United States”. Andaman engineers still use his designs and techniques to construct houses on the island. This bit was the most telling; in a land where there is no ridiculous bureaucracy holding the people down, the freedom to innovate brings about a better way of life.
What parts of the film were you not compelled by?
There wasn’t much that I disagreed with or found un-compelling in the film. The only bit I might have cut out was the long intro intent on painting Reynolds as a rebel genius; the rest of the film did a perfect job of leading the viewer to that conclusion.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
The film compelled me to search and see where this stuff is still being done. I found that it is widespread throughout New Mexico and its boarder states, with projects reaching areas such as Ohio and New England. This method of house constructing is clearly taking hold within certain communities, and seems like it is only growing.
http://www.bluerockstation.com/earthshiphome.html
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film can play well to all audiences, although Reynolds curses many times which might make it unsuitable for children. The arguments in this film are pretty balanced in appeals, and each style holds its own well, lending itself well to any viewer.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This film showed that although it takes awhile, the current bureaucracy can still be waded through. The problem, however, is that obtaining said results (the bill, for example) take a long time. This bit of the film had no solution addressed, and left the viewer with a rather gloomy feeling. Over all though, the film told a story of hope for eco-friendly housing design.